Moves to repossess lands deemed as highly political

The move by Desmond Trotman and a group identifying itself as the “Committee for the Defence of the Constitution Inc” to go to the court to have lands repossessed in the areas commonly known as “Pradoville 1” and “Pradoville 2” has been deemed as an action that is sponsored and driven by the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Government.

Allegations are that these lands located at Plantations Goedverwagting and Sparendaam, on the East Coast of Demerara, were fraudulently developed under the previous Administration and awarded to persons in support of the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C).

However, the latest action by Trotman who is employed at the Asset Recovery Unity by the APNU+AFC coalition, which is to have ‘compulsory acquisition of private property’ without compensation is nothing short of unconstitutional, unlawful and oppressive.

This is according to a legal expert who requested anonymity when speaking with the Guyana Times International on Tuesday evening. The lawyer stated that such actions are reflective of autocrats and political dictators as he referred to cases where dozens of properties were ‘taken away’ during the 1970’s and 1980’s era when the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR) was in power.

It was also stated that the lands in question at “Pradoville 1” and “Pradoville 2” were sold at a value which was fixed by the then Housing Ministry in relation to housing development throughout the country.

He posited, however, on the assumption that these persons obtained the houselots ‘cheaply’, it is not a basis to cease and confiscate people’s properties.

“There is nothing unlawful for getting anything, providing anything at a cheaper price. That is not a crime; it is not a legal wrong. No Judge can lawfully and competently make any order(s) adverse to the propriety’s interest of anyone without hearing them,” the legal expert explained.

This publication was further told by the lawyer that the current Attorney General Basil Williams, who happens to be the only respondent in this matter “will not defend” the interest of the property owners in question.

“Indeed he is complicit in this action because as I said, this is a Government driven proceeding. Therefore a judge would be obliged to order service of these proceedings on all persons who would have acquired property in this neighbourhood. The Judge must afford them an opportunity to be part of the proceedings and defend this action,” he maintained.

It was recently reported that Trotman and the other applicants believe that the holders of each parcel “have been accorded privileges or advantages by Cabinet Ministers and administrative actions of the titles for state lands” located at the abovementioned locations.

They are also contesting that the court sets aside the purported sale and transfer to the “putative owners” of the identified lands.

This publication understands that their declaration also requests that the court rule that the said properties be vested forthwith in the Finance Minister on behalf of the State.